D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Hussar]

But, Ahn, I think you are engaging in a bit of "Well, it wasn't a problem in my game, therefore the problem doesn't exist".

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what you've said about your games, you play fairly low level 3e (and Pathfinder) games (say single digit levels for the most part) with very little combat and players who are not particularly interested in system mastery (I recall you said that your wizard players favor evokers and divination was the most commonly barred school).

So, yeah, in a group like that, it's pretty easy to not have any real balance problems. The thing to remember is, when people talk about 3e balance issues, they're generally talking about mid to high level characters (say starting about 9th level onwards) and casters which become much more powerful at those levels.

 

[Greg K]

There should be a balance between min/maxing and playing a 'fun' charatcer. 3.X tossed that balanced out the window and demanded min/maxing

No, it didn't. Min/maxing is not required. It is, actually, disallowed with my group and several other groups I know. We have also had people that participated in WOTC Char Op state on ENWorld that they and many others did so only as a theoretical exercise and disallowed min/maxing in their groups as well.
Min/maxing is only required through the eyes of a segment of the players based upon their play style.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The game changes to another form of system mastery, it's not 'how you built your charatcer' but how you play him.

While I agree with you sentiment, I've always thought of the latter as just "good play." To me, System Mastery is a specific phenomenon that revolves around using and/or abusing synergies within the character build rules. Those rules are completely removed from actual in-game play.

Not in my experience. I've played plenty and DMed more and I've never been 'demanded' to min/max anything. Games don't demand anything, and if 3e encourages one thing, it's customization, which may or may not lead to a particularly powerful character as a result.

You might want to sit down for this Ahn.... I agree with you. My particular problem with 3E that led me to stop playing it was because the customization could lead down such divergent paths to the point where my players and I were no longer having fun with the challenges presented to the characters. A fun challenge for those whose charcaters excelled were no fun for those whose didn't because the challenge overwhelmed their capabilities. A fun challenge for those whose characters were deficient were no fun for anybody because the superior characters would just cake-walk the opposition. But there was never any demand to min/max and I'm sure tables where everyone was at relatively equal levels of system mastery worked well. Whether it was a group full of min/maxers or a group full of people playing non-optimized characters. The admixture of the two caused an issue for us. 4E did fix that, but at the cost of other elements I've come to miss over time. I hope Next maintains this balance while striving to return some of the elements of D&D that were lost.

 

[Dausuul]

No, it didn't. Min/maxing is not required. It is, actually, disallowed with my group and several other groups I know. We have also had people that participated in WOTC Char Op state on ENWorld that they and many others did so only as a theoretical exercise and disallowed min/maxing in their groups as well.
Min/maxing is only required through the eyes of a segment of the players based upon their play style.

How can you disallow min/maxing? After all, if you're making a fighter, and your stat rolls include an 18 and a 7, it's min/maxing to put the 18 in Strength and the 7 in Charisma. Do you disallow that? What about choosing Power Attack instead of Toughness? Using a spiked chain? What's the cutoff that divides "reasonably intelligent decisions during character creation" from "min/maxing?"

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, Ahn, I think you are engaging in a bit of "Well, it wasn't a problem in my game, therefore the problem doesn't exist".

Well, it's more "the problem doesn't exist in my games and I'd have to be convinced that it exists in any significant number of other people's". It's also "You're ignoring other problems in pursuit of this one". My contention is increasingly that the pursuit of balance has caused more problems than it's fixed.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but, from what you've said about your games, you play fairly low level 3e (and Pathfinder) games (say single digit levels for the most part) with very little combat and players who are not particularly interested in system mastery (I recall you said that your wizard players favor evokers and divination was the most commonly barred school).

So, yeah, in a group like that, it's pretty easy to not have any real balance problems. The thing to remember is, when people talk about 3e balance issues, they're generally talking about mid to high level characters (say starting about 9th level onwards) and casters which become much more powerful at those levels.

You must have missed the thread where people were accusing me of equating adventuring with combat and ignoring all other endeavors. You also have a rather odd definition of system mastery; some of my players are pretty interested in it, others not. Playing an evoker is not antithetical to mastering the system, if you master the evoker. If you want to get into stereotypically overpowered classes, I've had quite a few druids, which went fine for me thank you.

But I've run a lot of games and I don't see why you feel the need to characterize them in such a reductionistic way. I occasionally share experiences to make my perspective clearer or to give concrete examples of abstract concepts, but this "let's dissect someone's game experience" can get ridiculous. I've run some gonzo epic games, and the last one I ran, while not epic, started at level 10 and included some powerful (but not overpowered) spellcasters. And then I've run some games that went through single-digit levels, then before that one at level 12 or so, and various others. Some of them have been bloodbaths, others we could make it through a session without a fight. The power level varies, the houserules vary, the themes vary, etc. etc. The beauty of D&D (and most especially 3e) is its flexibility. To say that I (or anyone) "only" understands the game a certain way is either stating the obvious (as no one is the sole arbiter of the D&D experience) or an absurd extreme (as there is no standard experience that we are all supposed to understand and some of us don't).

You'll notice I don't feel the need to run through your credentials when I discuss your opinions. I just assume that your opinions are as valid or invalid as everyone else's.

 

[TwoSix]

How can you disallow min/maxing? After all, if you're making a fighter, and your stat rolls include an 18 and a 7, it's min/maxing to put the 18 in Strength and the 7 in Charisma. Do you disallow that? What about choosing Power Attack instead of Toughness? Using a spiked chain? What's the cutoff that divides "reasonably intelligent decisions during character creation" from "min/maxing?"

Can't XP, but that's an excellent question.

 

[N'raac]

You might want to sit down for this Ahn.... I agree with you. My particular problem with 3E that led me to stop playing it was because the customization could lead down such divergent paths to the point where my players and I were no longer having fun with the challenges presented to the characters. A fun challenge for those whose charcaters excelled were no fun for those whose didn't because the challenge overwhelmed their capabilities. A fun challenge for those whose characters were deficient were no fun for anybody because the superior characters would just cake-walk the opposition. But there was never any demand to min/max and I'm sure tables where everyone was at relatively equal levels of system mastery worked well. Whether it was a group full of min/maxers or a group full of people playing non-optimized characters. The admixture of the two caused an issue for us.

This can be as simple as a group which agrees to a similar level of min/max'ing. No matter how much "system mastery" one may possess, when there is "one true way" to fill all roles within the party, and all other character options are sub-optimal, so never taken, the game becomes very boring, very quickly.

I knew a "gamer" some years back who questioned the word "game". "Game" implies you can win, which implies a systems mastery aspect - build the most powerful character possible, not build a character who will be interesting and entertaining to play, and will add to the enjoyment and entertainment of the game for the rest of the group. The closest we ever got to a better term, though, was "pastime", which didn't really sit well.

I want to see a game where character choices are just that - real, valid choices to make a wide variety of characters who can be effective in the game, and who will each have their turn to shine. Not "choices" of being an effective character or an ineffective one. These should be no option - no race, no class, no subclass, no feat, or skill, or spell - which players point to as a "must have". Whatever choice one makes, there should be choices left behind which were similarly valid. No choice should be a "loser character trap".

 

[Ahnehnois]

You might want to sit down for this Ahn.... I agree with you. My particular problem with 3E that led me to stop playing it was because the customization could lead down such divergent paths to the point where my players and I were no longer having fun with the challenges presented to the characters. A fun challenge for those whose charcaters excelled were no fun for those whose didn't because the challenge overwhelmed their capabilities. A fun challenge for those whose characters were deficient were no fun for anybody because the superior characters would just cake-walk the opposition. But there was never any demand to min/max and I'm sure tables where everyone was at relatively equal levels of system mastery worked well. Whether it was a group full of min/maxers or a group full of people playing non-optimized characters. The admixture of the two caused an issue for us.

These kind of statements remind me of a small number of late 2e/early 3e experiences I had, mostly before I started DMing. IME this was almost always a consequence of a DM failing to understand how the rules worked. For example, in one of my earliest DMing experiences I had a psion player, but I was not aware of the metacap, and furthermore I allowed him to convert spells directly to powers without adjusting for the differences in power point mechanics. The character was a tad overpowered, but the rules (despite rampant accusations of unbalance that went far beyond my group) were not.

However, there are a variety of other issues at play here.

To me, the overt inequality of characters isn't a problem. I used to think it was, but playing non-fantasy rpgs largely changed my mind.

I also think that said inequality plays very differently depending on the length of the campaign. When sitting down for a long extended venture, it becomes more important to ensure that everyone will at some point be engaged, whereas for a one-shot game, I'll commonly accept that one character might by the protagonist and others might not be involved at the same level.

Another thing that plays into it is passive DMing. When I see players with unequal levels of skill (or who for other reasons create unequal characters), I take it as my responsibility to identify and manage the resulting differences. When DMs don't do that, the inmates are effectively running the asylum, and mayhem may ensue.

None of which is to say that the system mastery or balance things can't be addressed on some level. I think making simpler and clearer rules fixes a lot of things.

4E did fix that, but at the cost of other elements I've come to miss over time.

I just wanted to highlight this statement because it illustrates the idea that balance is not simply something you have or you don't; it interacts with other aspects of the game experience, and creating balance can cause problems. What one thinks of the relative merits of different approaches is a separate issue, but balance does not simply refer to a "correctly" designed or professionally edited game.

 

[Greg K]

How can you disallow min/maxing? "

Dausuul. Optimizing and min/maxing are related, but they not the same thing.

Optimizing is a continuum and, yes, as soon as you start assigning numbers whether ability scores or skill points, you are optimizing. As soon as prioritizing begins, there is some optimization involved. However, I can prioritize to the concept of fighter that grew up as a farmer (putting starting skill points into profession farmer) and is excellent horse rider (some more ranks in ride) and some points in survival (he spent time hunting in the forest) and some languages (he went and traded goods at the market). I can then fine tune to a degree based on how well I envision him at his skills.

Min/Maxing is a more extreme form of optimization that involves maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. the last part is key in differentiating between the two.

In my above example, I didn't maximize him to be the best at anything and I, definitely, didn't try to shore up other areas to minimize weaknesses nor to I build by dump stat or avoid skills, because I could avoid them.
By prioritizing, I engaged in some level of optimization to meet the character concept, but did not go to extremes found on the CharOP to squeeze every bonus, exploit the system let alone build a Pun Pun

 

[sidonunspa]

Not in my experience. I've played plenty and DMed more and I've never been 'demanded' to min/max anything. Games don't demand anything, and if 3e encourages one thing, it's customization, which may or may not lead to a particularly powerful character as a result.

Personal experience always depends on a number of factors... Chances are you play with a stable group of players that all share the same level of system mastery.

Toss in a new player with a higher level of system mastery and you'll see your experience change within the first two games.

If we are pulling of personal exp I can use mine. I use to design/write d20 material for paradigm concepts when Arcanis was a d20 world. I really know the in's and out's of the base system and I'm very well versed in pathfinder.

I recall two times where I came into a new group to play in an existing campaign. 1st question I ask 'what's not allowed' then I work from there....in both cases I was asked to 'tone down' my characters power level. Both times my presence changed the game, significantly, as I would point out new strategies and build options to the other players. Both times the list of banned items/books grew by quite a bit.

When you see more then one GM ask 'ohh wait, how are you doing that much damage?' Or 'how the heck is your AC that high' you know the game has shifted